TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:56 pm https://kdvr.com/news/local/unlicensed- ... nd-degree/

Charged with murder in the 2nd degree.

seph wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:59 am

eyedoc wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:46 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:36 am

parabelum wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:20 am Press guy states that the security guy was protecting him.

Again, both were dumb and one paid with his life. He still looks like more of an aggressor than the shooter. Note that he’s the most active participant in the overall situation next to the dude in the black guns matter (cool shirt) shirt. Note he (victim) says get the bleep camera out of here or I’m gonna ... bleep you up etc. which would support the press guy claim that the victim threatened him. Security dude steps in between and 7secs later it is over.

He’s the initial aggressor looks like to me as he confronted the press guy solely because of the camera. The security dude just ended up in between. Just what I’m seeing at 01:32 forward.

Wow! That does make it look bad for the guy who got shot. What a dad gummed mess! Intentionally going to one of these things is not a great idea. Way to many ways to find trouble!

Too bad the "guard" turned a verbal altercation into a homicide.

Correction, armed citizen. Not licensed to be a guard = not a guard. Lawsuit coming against the news media and security company though for having unlicenced personal. I heard charges were already being filed against the news media regarding the use of unlicenced personal.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:36 am

parabelum wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:20 am Press guy states that the security guy was protecting him.

Again, both were dumb and one paid with his life. He still looks like more of an aggressor than the shooter. Note that he’s the most active participant in the overall situation next to the dude in the black guns matter (cool shirt) shirt. Note he (victim) says get the bleep camera out of here or I’m gonna ... bleep you up etc. which would support the press guy claim that the victim threatened him. Security dude steps in between and 7secs later it is over.

He’s the initial aggressor looks like to me as he confronted the press guy solely because of the camera. The security dude just ended up in between. Just what I’m seeing at 01:32 forward.

Wow! That does make it look bad for the guy who got shot. What a dad gummed mess! Intentionally going to one of these things is not a great idea. Way to many ways to find trouble!

Rob72 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:30 pm All kinds of stupid, throughout.

If you're making a public statement, don't make it hard to tell you (Mr. Goodguy Niceneighbor) from Thugly Moron. Dress conservatively.

If someone without a badge attempts to disarm you (and why is your tickler out there to attract attention, unless you are, eh, attracting attention, which is by definition, "escalation"?) they don't get a love tap. Either you control and dominate them, while shouting for the Poleece!! or you leave.

I suspect Dolloff fancied himself a Bengazi operator, by the look of things. In his defense (and it is not a valid defense), I would wonder if the news producer had offered him a bonus if, "something exciting happens..." The fact that Pinkerton seems to legitimately not be tied to him significantly raises my suspicions.

parabelum wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:12 pm Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person:

“(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury;  or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204 ;  or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302 , robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302 , sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 , or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203 .

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person;  or

(b) He is the initial aggressor;  except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force;  or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense.  If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction.  The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner.  However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense.  This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.“


So, looks like a pickle. Again, IANAL but to me it looks like his attorney will have to now prove that he did not cause provocation with an “ intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person”. It will be muddy.

Both should have stayed home.

rtschl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:50 pm Facebook and Instagram have banned John Tig Tiegen (Benghazi 13 hour fighter) who was there and I think of of the organizers of the Denver Patriot Rally. He was on Tucker Carlson tonight (Monday). He was near where the shooting happened but not right at the scene. He did say the shooter and another guy wearing Black Gun Matters shirt kept trying to antagonize marchers and huddled with the 9News reporter/producer before the shooting.

Below is a video sequence of the still photos that were taken by the photographer. If the shooter was being antagonistic towards marchers, it is going to be harder to prove self defense. This sequence below clearly shows victim backing away before he was shot.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:51 pm The self defense laws in Colorado may be different than in Texas. Isn't self defense nullified if you create the situation that requires self defense? In other words, you antagonize someone to the point they "slap" you, you cannot then shoot them and claim self defense. If Colorado has similar laws, the shooter cannot claim self defense if he first antagonized a response from the victim. I saw the Tucker episode and they talked of this shooter and his two partners in crime going from one group to another trying to elicit a response. Maybe for the camera. Maybe to have an excuse to murder someone.

parabelum wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:22 am

eyedoc wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:47 am

parabelum wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:50 pm I might be in minority here on this particular case, but based on what I have seen thus far, and of course as new evidence comes out this may or may not change, it does appear that the guy who was shot was the aggressor.

Did the victim initially slap the shooter because he was going for his weapon?

I don’t know. That piece I did not see but as I said, with what I did see it appears that the victim was the initial aggressor.
If the slap was because shooter was reaching for his weapon I’d say that is iffy as well.

Let’s say you’re there when an protifa dude walks up aggressively towards you. Words are exchanged and maybe he threatens you. Now in many jurisdictions a threat is considered an assault and now you reach for your weapon, not to use it right away but to have it ready should the victim appear armed or become more belligerent.

Victim not only doesn’t back away but proceeds to smack you committing another offense, a battery in this case. So now what are your options? You undoubtedly put yourself in a pickle by being there in the first place but that’s not criminal, it may be just dumb.

If you stand there the victim may very well disarm you (looks to be a bigger guy than you physically) and it isn’t unreasonable to believe use your weapon against you.

If you try to run, now your back is turned and you still don’t know if the victim is armed or not (aside from mace), or if he will pick up a rock and throw it at your running noggin.
You choose to shoot as maybe you see no other viable solution at the moment.

As you see, there are in my opinion at least, legal grounds for self defense here, not solid though as the details appear murky right now.

A factor which may or may not come into play here is that the shooter does appear to have had a work justification to be there, the victim appears to have come looking for trouble and found it.

parabelum wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:50 pm I might be in minority here on this particular case, but based on what I have seen thus far, and of course as new evidence comes out this may or may not change, it does appear that the guy who was shot was the aggressor.

parabelum wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:50 pm I might be in minority here on this particular case, but based on what I have seen thus far, and of course as new evidence comes out this may or may not change, it does appear that the guy who was shot was the aggressor.

srothstein wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 11:04 pm

eyedoc wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:14 pm A hand cranked Gatling gun is legal.

That might make for an interesting legal case. If a hand cranked Gatling gun is legal, why would an electrically cranked one not be legal? I know the answer under the current law would be that the electric button would be the trigger, but under the concept that the law should make sense this is a good question.